Hasan v. Johnson
Filing
144
ORDER DENYING 141 Motion for Post-Judgment Interest, Costs, and Fees signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/27/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
JAWWAAD HASAN,
14
15
16
17
Plaintiff,
v.
B. JOHNSON,
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-0381-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST, COSTS, AND
FEES
(ECF NO. 141)
Defendant.
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action brought
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s complaint
against Defendant for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Order
22
23
Dismissing Claims and Defendants, ECF No. 19.)
24
On December 13, 2013, Defendant filed notice that Plaintiff had accepted an offer
25
of judgment of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. (ECF No. 139.)
26
The Court entered a judgment of dismissal on December 24, 2013. (ECF No. 140.)
27
28
1
2
3
Before this Court is Plaintiff’s motion for post-judgment interest, costs and fees.
(ECF No. 141.) Defendant filed an opposition to the motion on January 27, 2014. (ECF
No. 142.) The time to file reply documents has passed and none were filed. This matter
4
is deemed submitted.
5
6
Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement with Defendant, in which he gave up
7
his rights to pursue post-judgment interest, costs, and fees. (Settlement Agreement, ECF
8
No. 143.) The agreement states, “Unless expressly stated otherwise, no interest shall be
9
paid on the settlement amount.” (Settlement Agreement at 2, ¶ III.4.) It then goes on to
10
provide that, other than the settlement amount, “[n]o other monetary sum will be paid to
11
Plaintiff” and “[e]ach party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees.” (Settlement
12
13
14
15
Agreement at 2, ¶ III.5-6.) Thus, the settlement agreement expressly rules out any
interest, costs, or fees being paid.
Generally, “the construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are
16
governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of contacts generally.”
17
O’Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820, 822 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United Commercial
18
19
Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992)). Under California
law, “[t]he fundamental goal of contract interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intent
20
21
of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting.” Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark
22
Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc.,
23
454 F.3d 975, 989 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)). Here, the parties’ mutual intent to forego
24
any rights to interest, costs, and fees is plain on the face of the settlement agreement.
25
26
Under the terms of the settlement agreement he entered into, Plaintiff is unable to
recover post-judgment interest, costs, or fees from Defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
27
motion for same is hereby DENIED.
28
2
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
Dated:
June 27, 2014
/s/
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?